SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE

Care | Courage | Competence | Collaboration

CONSTITUENT OF
SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL (DEEMED UNIVERSITY)
Reaccredited by NAAC with 'A' Grade

Symbiosis Campus, Opp. Pune International Airport,

Symbiosis Road, Viman Nagar, Pune 411 014.

CLINICAL COURSE - IV - JOURNAL

(MOOT COURT EXERCISE AND INTERNSHIP)
V YEAR OF BA./BB.A. LL.B. (Hons.)

Academic Year : 2021-2022

SEMESTER - X

Name of Student : Kushal Gupta

Exam. Seat No. :

Roll No. : 032 Div. : ‘A’

Batch : 2017-2022 Programme : BA. LL.B. (Hons.)

PRN No.: 18010126066 Mobile No. : 8130337203

E-mail ID : gupta.kushal97@gmail.com
 CLINICAL COURSE - IV
(MOOT COURT EXERCISE AND INTERNSHIP)

Learning Objectives:
1. To enable the student to understand not only the application of law in practice, but also the
citation of relevant rulings and the art of convincing the judges.
2. To train the students in methodical preparation of the case for achieving success as a lawyer
and further train in proper presentation of the case and come out with a clear statement of
points in controversy.
3. To facilitate the students to attend Civil Case and Criminal Trial Proceedings and observe the
proceedings in the court so as to understand the functional aspects of the components of the
Indian legal justice system.
4. To make the students understand how to deal with the client and collect the relevant
information.
5. To understand the nature of the case, issues involved in the case through the method of
interview technique.
6. To understand and apply the formats of the memorials and other documents submitted to the
court.
7. To study and understand pre-trail preparations and preparation of documents and court papers
by the advocates.

Learning Outcomes:
At the end of the course the student will:
1. understand not only the application of low in practice, but also the citation of relevant ruling
and the art of convincing the judges.
2. be also to prepare the case for achieving success as a lawyer and further the student will able to
present the case and come out with a clear statement of points in controversy.
3. be able to understand working of the Civil Case and Criminal Trial Proceedings.
4. be able to deal with the client and collect the relevant information.
5. be in position to understand the nature of the case, issues involved in the case using interview
technique.
6. be able to understand and apply formats of memorial and other documents in the court practice.
7. be able to preparememorial and other documents required for court proceedings.

1) Moot Courts (30 Marks)

Every student will do at least 3 moot courts in this semester with 10 marks for each. The
moot courts work will be on assigned problems and it will be evaluated for 5 marks for
written submission and 5 marks for oral advocacy.

2) Observation of Civil Proceedings (15 Marks)

Students will attend one Civil Case Proceeding in this semester. A student will submit a
report for the work done in this semester and all submissions and assignments will be
written in the format provided by the SLS, Pune. A student will maintain a record of all the
steps observed in the trial (including the facts of the case, arguments and orders) and the
days of court attendance in the report.

3) Observation of Trial (15 Marks)

Students will attend one Criminal Trial in this semester. A student will submit a report for
the work done in this semester and all submissions and assignments will be made as per the
format provided by SLS, Pune. A student will maintain a record of all the steps observed in
the trial (including the facts of the case, arguments and orders) and the days of court
attendance in the report.

1
4) Interviewing Techniques and Pre-trial Preparations & Internships (30 Marks)
4.1 Interviewing sessions
4.1.1. Interviewing session-I
4.1.2. Interviewing session - II
A report should be prepared as per the format provided by SLS, Pune
4.1.3. Preparation of Documents and Court Papers by the Advocates and Procedures
for filing Petition/ Suit etc. A report should be prepared as per the format provided by
SLS,Pune.

5) Internships (30 Marks)

4.2.1. Internship I (10 Marks)
4.2.2. Internship II (10 Marks)
4.2.3. Internship III (10 Marks)

6) Viva-Voce (30 Marks)

Books Recommended :
— Sue Painter - Thorne, Karen J. Sneddon, Moot Court Workbook: Finding Educational Success
and Competition Glory, Wolters Khuwer (2017)
— John Snape, Gary Watt, How to Moot : A Student Guide to Mooting, Oxford University Press
(2010)
— Sarah L. Cooper, Scarlett McArdle, Preparing to Moot : A Step-by-Step Guide to Mooting,
Routledge(Taylor& Francis Group)(2017)

2
 INDEX
Sr. No. Description of Practical Training Page No. Marks Obtained

1. MOOT COURTS (30 Marks)

a) Moot Court - I (10 Marks)
b) Moot Court - II (10 Marks)
c) Moot Court - III (10 Marks)

2. OBSERVATION OF CIVIL CASE PROCEEDINGS:

(15 Marks)

3. OBSERVATION OF CRIMINAL TRIAL :

(15 Marks)

4. INTERVIEWING TECHNIQUES AND PRE-TRIAL

PREPARATIONS & INTERNSHIPS: (30 Marks)
4.1 Interviewing Sessions
4.1.1. Interviewing Session - I
4.1.2. Interviewing Session - II
4.1.3. Preparation of Documents and Court Papers by the
Advocates & the Procedure for filing Petition/ Suit
etc.

5. Internships (30 Marks)

5.1 Internship I (10 Marks)
5.2 Internship II (10 Marks)
5.3 Internship III (10 Marks)

6. VIVA-VOCE (30 Marks)

3
 MOOT COURT – 1

TITLE: RANJIT v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

 18010126066

MOOT COURT EXERCISE AND INTERNSHIPS (CLINICAL COURSE - IV)

IN THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY UNDER ARTICLE 226,

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

WRIT JURISDICTION W.P. No. / 2022

IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA, 1950

RANJIT… ............................................................................................................ PETITIONER

V.

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...................................................................... RESPONDENT

BEFORE SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION

JUDGES OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER~

 MOOT COURT EXERCISE AND INTERNSHIP (CLINICAL COURSE – IV)
18010126066

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Honorable High Court of Bombay has the jurisdiction to hear the present petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950:

226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout
the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority,
including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or
writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto
and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III
and for any other purpose

(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government,
authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in
relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the
exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the
residence of such person is not within those territories

(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or
in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1),
without

(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea
for such interim order; and

(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court
for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose
favor such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of
the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the
date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the
High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards
on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order
shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the aid next day, stand
vacated

(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the
power conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of Article 32.

1
 MOOT COURT EXERCISE AND INTERNSHIP (CLINICAL COURSE – IV)
18010126066

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE ACCIDENT:

Mr. Ranjit was charged for rash and negligent driving and murder of Ms. Rani, the daughter of
political leader Mr. Raha. Subsequently, Mr. Ranjit was prosecuted and convicted for culpable
homicide amounting to murder.

MEDIA TRIAL BY KAB TELEVISION CHANNEL:

KAB channel, owned by BK corporation, prepared a special report on the accident, heightening
issues, pieces of evidence, problems in investigation and pointed out the possibility of corruption
by investigating officer. KBA channel in its report pointed out that Mr. Kompraj, the owner of
the tea stall was present at the time of the murder. However, the prosecutor did not call him as a
prosecution witness.

SUO MOTU INVESTIGATION BY SESSION AND DISTRICT COURT:

Based on the report by the KAB Television Channel, the Session and District Court suo motu
ordered a fresh investigation. The Court ordered the municipal corporation to produce the said
CCTV footage. The Judge also visited the location of the murder in order to find out the probable
evidence. The CCTV footage was not scrutinized by either of parties and therefore, there was no
argument with respect to the reliability and validity of CCTV footage. The Judge suo moto called
Mr. Kompraj and recorded his statement.

ALLEGATIONS FORWARDED BY MR. RANJIT:

Mr. Ranjit pointed out that the case (including facts, issues and evidences) shall not be discussed
by the media when the matter is sub judice. According to him, it may change the perception of
the Judge and the Judge may be biased. He further pointed out that there is no scrutiny about the
truthfulness of the media report, it is not verified by any independent and reliable authority.
According to Mr. Ranjit, the media has a tendency to reproduce the facts and issues with added
flavor in order to increase its TRP ratings.

2
 MOOT COURT EXERCISE AND INTERNSHIP (CLINICAL COURSE – IV)
18010126066

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

~ Issue 1 ~

WHETHER THERE ARE LIMITATIONS ON MEDIA TRIAL WHEN CASE/ MATTER

IS SUB JUDICE?

~ Issue 2 ~

WHETHER THE SUO-MOTO ACTIONS AND ACTIVISM BY THE JUDGE IN THE

PRESENT CASE ARE AGAINST THE BASIC TENETS OF COMMON LAW SYSTEM
AND THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973?

~ Issue 3 ~

WHETHER A JUDGEMENT IN THE ABSENCE OF ARGUMENT ON EVIDENCE

VALID?

3
 MOOT COURT EXERCISE AND INTERNSHIP (CLINICAL COURSE – IV)
18010126066

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE NO. 1

WHETHER THERE ARE LIMITATIONS ON MEDIA TRIAL WHEN CASE/ MATTER

IS SUB JUDICE?

It is humbly contended before this Hon’ble High Court by the counsel on behalf of the petitioner
that the there exist limitations on media trials in the current sub judice matter. The right to fair
trial of the accused person has not been protected and the report broadcasted by KAB channel
does create a prejudice against the rights of the accused person.

This shall be proved in a two pronged manner: [1.A] Media trials should not tamper with the
administration of justice and free trial, and [1.B] No immunity under contempt of Courts
Act.

ISSUE 1.A: MEDIA TRIALS SHOULD NOT TAMPER WITH THE ADMINISTRATION
OF JUSTICE AND FREE TRIAL
In the context of the present case, the counsel wishes to draw your lordships attention to
paragraph 3 of the problem which clarifies that KAB did not just follow the matter but actively
took over the investigation by preparing an entire special report with pieces of evidence,
problems in investigation and allegations of corruption on the part of the investigating officer.
Media trial where the media itself does a separate investigation, builds a public opinion against
the accused even before the Court takes cognizance of the case. By this way, it prejudices the
public and sometimes even Judges and as a result the accused, that should be assumed innocent,
is presumed as a criminal leaving all his rights and liberty unredressed.

The Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian
Express1 stated that the media cannot exercise freedom of expression in an unfettered fashion.
Similarly, in R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court2 it was held that if the media exercises an
unrestricted and unregulated freedom before the completion of investigation, the same would
amount to maladministration of justice.

Furthermore, in Anukul Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India3, the Court stated that presumption
of innocence of an accused is a legal presumption and should not be destroyed at the very
threshold through the process of media trial and that too when the investigation is pending. In
that event, it will be opposed to the very basic rule of law and would impinge upon the protection
granted to an accused under Article 214 of the Constitution.

1
Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express, 1988 (4) SCC 592.
2
R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court, (2009) 8 SCC 106.
3
Anukul Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 354.
4
Article 21, Constitution of India.

4
 MOOT COURT EXERCISE AND INTERNSHIP (CLINICAL COURSE – IV)
18010126066

Also, M.P. Lohia v. State of West Bengal,5 the Court defined fair trial as one in which any bias
or prejudice towards or against the accused is eliminated. Thus, for a trial to be fair, it has to be
conducted before an impartial Judge. In the present case however, the Judge was influenced by
the media trial and no longer impartial. The same can be evidenced by him relying upon the
evidence produced by KAB in its report, which was not scrutinized by either parties and even
recording a statement made by an independent witness who was not called by the prosecution or
examined by the defense.
In fact, in Indian Council of Legal Aid v. State6, the Supreme Court stated that hue and cry
made by the media disturbs the equilibrium of a Judge to reach the decision of the case law.

In the present instance, owing to the excessive biased reporting by the KAB channel, there was
sentiment against Mr. Ranjit in the given case, the minds of the Court were unduly influenced.
Whilst the case was sub-judice, the perception of the Judges was manipulated by repetitively
painting a negative picture of the accused without any conclusive evidence against the same,
thereby affecting the accurate administration of justice.

ISSUE 1. B: NO IMMUNITY UNDER CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT

Under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 19717, any publication which interferes with or,
obstructs or tends to obstruct any proceeding, be it civil or criminal, and the course of justice
which is a pending proceeding, constitutes contempt of Court. Further, the Court in R.K. Anand
v. Registrar of Delhi High Court8 reiterated the fact that if the trial by media or string makes
prejudicial pre-judgment as to guilt or otherwise of accused, it could attract the provisions of
contempt of Court. Moreover, the Supreme Court in Court on its Own Motion v. Ravi9 on this
point that such media reports have the effect of interfering with the administration of justice and
amounts to criminal contempt.

In the present instance, the report by KAB channel not only offered collection of evidence
related to the alleged accident, but only went ahead to appreciate the said evidence and offer a
collective judgment, whilst the case was sub-judice. Therefore, the said media amounted to a
media trial, amounting to contempt under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act10.

ISSUE NO. 2

WHETHER THE SUO-MOTO ACTIONS AND ACTIVISM BY THE JUDGE IN THE

PRESENT CASE ARE AGAINST THE BASIC TENETS OF COMMON LAW SYSTEM
AND THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973?

It is humbly contented that the suo-motu actions and activism by the Learned Judge in the
present case are against the basic tenets of common law system and the Criminal Procedure

5
M.P. Lohia v. State of West Bengal, (2005) 2 SCC 686.
6
Indian Council of Legal Aid v. State, Writ Petition 17595/2006, Nov. 27, 2006.
7
Section 3, Contempt of Courts Act 1971.
8
R.K. Anand v. Registrar of Delhi High Court, 8 SCC 106 (2009).
9
Own Motion v. Ravi, (2009) 2 K.L.J. 166.
10
Ibid.

5
 MOOT COURT EXERCISE AND INTERNSHIP (CLINICAL COURSE – IV)
18010126066

Code, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”). It is further contended that the Learned Judge truly didn’t acted as a
neutral third party and did help or support any side.

This shall be proved in a two pronged manner: [1.A] Suo motu action by the Judge not within
the contours of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and [1.B] the actions were not in
consonance with the common law.

ISSUE 2.A: SUO MOTU ACTION BY THE JUDGE NOT WITHIN THE CONTOURS
OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973

ISSUE 2.A.1 – THE ACTIONS WERE NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH SECTION 311 OF
THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973

In Hanuman Ram v. State of Rajasthan11, the Court said that the Judge shall only exercise
overarching powers provided by Section 31112 of the Code in exceptional circumstances wherein
such a step us essential to the just decision of the case. In the failure of the same, the Court is not
empowered under the provisions of the Code to compel either the prosecution or defense to
examine any witness on either side.

In the present instance, the Judge ordered the presence of witness Mr. Kompraj only on the mere
insinuation that he was present during the incident as per the report by KAB channel. However,
the same was neither verified by the CCTV footage nor by any contrary evidenced forwarded by
either party. Thus, the Court relied on mere hearsay evidence to initiate proceedings under
Section 31113 of the Code, acting outside the ambit of powers offered under it.

ISSUE 2.A.2 – THE ACTIONS WERE NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH SECTION 173(8)
OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973

In Sreekumar Menon v. Baby Container Terminal Ltd.14, the Court cannot suo motu direct
further investigation under Section 173(8)15 of the Code. The right to initiate the same is
invested with the investigating officers. In the present instance, not only the same was preceded
by the Court but also relied heavily during the appreciation of evidence resulting in the
questioned judgment. Moreover the Section talks about further investigation and not a fresh
investigation.

Similarly, in Keisam Kumar Singh v. State of Manipur16 as well as Pritam Singh v. State of
Punjab17, it was held that a local Court is not entitled to make a local inspection and even if it is
made, it can never take the position of evidence. This directly contradicts the position taken by
the judge relying on the local inspection as critical evidence in the present instance.

11
Hanuman Ram v. State of Rajasthan, Criminal Appeal No. 1597 of 2008.
12
Section 311, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
13
Ibid.
14
Sreekumar Menon v. Baby Container Terminal Ltd., 2012 (2) KLJ 432.
15
Section 173(8), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
16
Keisam Kumar Singh v. State of Manipur, (1985) 3 SCC 676.
17
Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SCC 672.

6
 MOOT COURT EXERCISE AND INTERNSHIP (CLINICAL COURSE – IV)
18010126066

ISSUE 2.B – THE ACTIONS WERE NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH THE COMMON
LAW SYSTEM

An inquisitorial system involves a preliminary investigation conducted by an investigating

magistrate as a means of seeking the truth. It is accepted that the adversarial system does not do
this. As mentioned in the landmark judgment in R v. Whithorn18, the Judge’s role in that system
is to hold the balance between the contending parties without himself taking part in their
disputations. It is not an inquisitorial role in which he seeks himself to remedy the deficiencies of
the case on either side. In the given instance, we observe the judge overstepping the limitations
observed by the adversarial form of law, by the acts of overarching judicial Activism by
nitiating further investigation based on a media report.

ISSUE NO. 3

WHETHER A JUDGEMENT IN THE ABSENCE OF ARGUMENT ON EVIDENCE

VALID?

It is humbly contended that the judgement passed by the Session and District Court in the case
of State of Maharashtra v. Ranjit in the absence of argument on evidences is not valid as in the
present case the judgement primarily relied upon the CCTV footage and the witness statement.

This shall be proved in a two pronged manner: [1.A] the procedure adopted is against the
provisions of CRPC, and [1.B] the procedure adopted is against the principles of natural
justice.

ISSUE 3.A: THE PROCEDURE ADOPTED IS AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF

CRPC
Section 235(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code19 mandates that only upon hearing arguments
and points of law (if any), the Judge shall give a judgment in the case. The same has further
been reiterated in Section 314 of the Code20 wherein the legislative intent demonstrates the
opportunity to address oral arguments or a memorandum to the Court, as a mandatory
procedure before the passing of judgment.
Failure of the same amounted to a contravention to existing procedure. Moreover, the same has
been upheld in Vijay & Ors v. State21, wherein the judgment rendered by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, on the failure to hear oral arguments was deems not sustainable and was set aside.
In the present instance, the absence of any arguments to the evidence raised amounts to a
contravention to due process established by the Code and vitiates the conviction passed by the
Court.

18
R v. Whithorn, (1983) 152 CLR 657.
19
Section 235(1), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
20
Section 314, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
21
Vijay & Ors v. State, 2011-2- L.W. (Crl.) 345.

7
 MOOT COURT EXERCISE AND INTERNSHIP (CLINICAL COURSE – IV)
18010126066

ISSUE 3.B –THE PROCEDURE ADOPTED IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF

NATURAL JUSTICE
The rule of audi alteram partem is a basic principle of natural justice which states that both
parties to a dispute must be provided an opportunity to be heard. To ensure a fair hearing, each
party must be informed of the evidence produced before the Court.
It must be duly noted, under Section 44 of Indian Evidence Act22 states, that if the previous
judgment is proved fraud, collusion (secret or illegal cooperation) or incompetency of Court then
such judgment does not have the effect of res judicata meaning it may be pursued by the parties
again.
Further, evidence collected must be appreciated by the Court thoroughly as has been held in the
case of Sham Sunder v. Puran and Ors.23 In the present case however, the evidence was not
scrutinized by either of the parties and therefore, there was no argument with respect to the
reliability and validity of the same. This is against the cardinal rule of evidence law. Thus, such
evidence cannot be admitted.
It is the essence of a judgment of a Court that it must be obtained lawfully, after due observance
of the judicial process. In the failure of allowing either party to present their arguments, the
Court bypassed the principle of natural justice, audi alterem partem, which has been upheld in
several civil as well as criminal judgments in the past.
Any judgment, thus arrived by the Court, relying on evidence not following the said principle
can be seen to prejudiced and unlawful, as was stated in State of UP v. Sudhir Kumar Singh24.

22
Section 44, Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
23
Sham Sunder v. Puran and Ors., 1991 AIR, 8 1990 SCR Supl. (1) 662.
24
State of UP v. Sudhir Kumar Singh, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 847.

8
 MOOT COURT EXERCISE AND INTERNSHIP (CLINICAL COURSE – IV)
18010126066

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the Issues Raised, Argument Advanced and Authorities Cited, that the
Hon’ble High Court of Bombay may be pleased to:

1. DECLARE that there exists limitations on media trial when a matter is sub-judice and

conduct a Fair Retrial in which case the merits of the case must be rejudged without any

further biasness and irregularities in terms of ethical conduct and procedure;

2. HOLD that suo moto actions and activism by a Judge in the present case are against basic

tenants of the common law system and the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973;

3. AFFIRM that the present judgement in absence of arguments is not valid;

AND/OR

Pass any other order, direction or relief that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and
Good conscience.

For this act of kindness, the Petitioners shall duty bound forever pray.

Sd/-

(Counsel for the Petitioner)